Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/155,764

METHODS FOR SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING PROXIMITY LIGATION

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jan 22, 2021
Examiner
CHUNDURU, SURYAPRABHA
Art Unit
1681
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
10X Genomics, INC.
OA Round
6 (Final)
53%
Grant Probability
Moderate
7-8
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

53%
Career Allow Rate
376 granted / 709 resolved
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
avg trend
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
59 pending
768
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
§103
29.5%
-10.5% vs TC avg
§102
30.9%
-9.1% vs TC avg
§112
17.8%
-22.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION 1. The Applicant’s response to the office action filed on July 22, 2025 is acknowledged. Status of the Application 2. Claims 53 and 56-74 are pending under examination. New claim 75 is added. Claims 1-52, 60-61 were canceled. The Applicant’s arguments and the amendment have been fully considered and found unpersuasive for the following reasons. Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 53 and 56-75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Fan et al. (US 2018 /0088112) in view of Shannon et al. (US 2008/0032310). Note regarding claim 75 reciting product by process, the claim 75 is interpreted as a product as noted in MPEP 2113-I. Fan et al. teach a kit of claim 53, 75, comprising (a) an array comprising a plurality of capture probes affixed to the array, wherein in a capture probe of plurality of capture probes comprises a capture domain and a spatial barcode (para 0010, 0012-0019, 0045-0046-0052, 0057-0059); (b) a first analyte-binding moiety (first protein binding reagent) conjugated to a first oligonucleotide comprising a first barcode; and a second analyte binding moiety conjugated to a second oligonucleotide comprising a second barcode (para 0006-0007, 0009-0010, 0020-0024, 0053-0056, 0185-0192); (c) a third oligonucleotide (splint oligonucleotide), wherein the third oligonucleotide comprises a sequence that is substantially complementary to the first oligonucleotide and substantially complementary to the second oligonucleotide (para 0165-0168 0185-0192, 0159, 0606); With reference to claims 56-57, Fan et al. teach that the first oligonucleotide further comprises a first functional sequence, or a first unique molecular identifier (UMI) and second oligonucleotide comprises a second functional sequence, or a second unique molecular identifier (UMI) (para 0006, 0009-0010, 0310, 0343); With reference to claims 58-59, 73, Fan et al. teach that the first oligonucleotide comprises one or more uracil nucleotides and the second oligonucleotide comprises a capture domain and one or more uracil nucleotides and the polymerase is U (+) or U (-) polymerase (para 0294, 0043, 0059, 0198). With reference to claims 60-61, Fan et al. teach that the first analyte-binding moiety is a first protein which is a first antibody comprising antigen-binding fragment and the second analyte-binding moiety is a second protein which is a second antibody comprising antigen-binding fragment or peptide ligand (para 0280-0281, 0475-0476, 0033). With reference to claim 62-63, Fan et al. teach that the first analyte-binding moiety or the second analyte-binding moiety is associated with a linker comprising photocleavable linker and the first or second oligonucleotide comprises a free 3’-end (para 0006, 0536-0538, 0349, 0053, 0168, 0016, 0049). With regard to claims 64-65, Fan et al. teach that the first and the second barcode are same or different (para 0527, 0006, 0192, 0521). With regard to claim 66, Fan et al. the third oligonucleotide comprises a sequence of about 20 to 60 nucleotides (para 0162, 0185-0186, 0085). With regard to claims 67-71, Fan et al. teach that the first and second proteins are selected from a cell surface moiety and the host protein, viral protein antibodies, antigen binding fragments (para 0281, 0341). With regard to claims 72, Fan et al. teach that the first oligonucleotide further comprises a first bridge sequence and the second oligonucleotide further comprises a second bridge sequence, wherein the first and second bridge sequences are substantially complementary to each other (para 0030, 0036). With reference to claim 74, Fan et al. teach that the second oligonucleotide further comprises a capture probe domain sequence that is complementary to the capture domain of the capture probe affixed to the array (para 0106, 0192, 0126, 0147, 0174). Although Fan et al. teach proximity ligation, however, Fan et al. did not specifically teach kit comprising a ligase and third oligonucleotide comprising blocking probe hybridized to the capture probe capture domain. Shannon et al. teach a kit comprising proximity probes and a splint oligonucleotide comprising blocked oligonucleotide sequence and a ligase, wherein Shannon et al. teach a probe set ligation using a splint oligonucleotide that is modified to block the unwanted primer extension and reduces accumulation of ligated products (para 0176-0177, 0192-0193, 0199). It would have been prima facie obvious to an ordinary person skilled before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the kit comprising proximity probes as taught by Fan et al. with the kit comprising a ligase and blocked splint oligonucleotide as taught by Shannon et al. to develop a ready to use composition for sensitive detecting multiple protein targets. The ordinary person skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the kit comprising the proximity probes, blocked splint oligonucleotide and a ligase as taught by Shannon et al., and have a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach proximity probes and a third (bridge or splint) oligonucleotide, wherein Shannon et al. explicitly taught kit comprising a blocked splint oligonucleotide and a ligase, wherein the blocked splint oligonucleotide prevents unwanted primer extension and reduces the accumulation of ligation products (para 0176-0177, 0192-0193, 0199) and such a modification of the kit composition is considered obvious over the cited prior art. Response to Arguments: With reference to the rejection of claims 53 and 56-74 under 35 USC 103, the Applicant’s arguments and the amendment have been fully considered. However, the combination of the Fan et al. and Shannon et al. teach the limitations as amended and the rejection is maintained and restated to address the amendment. Conclusion No claims are allowable. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURYAPRABHA CHUNDURU whose telephone number is (571)272-0783. The examiner can normally be reached 8.00am-4.30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Benzion can be reached at 571-272-0782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Suryaprabha Chunduru Primary Examiner Art Unit 1681 /SURYAPRABHA CHUNDURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 22, 2021
Application Filed
Apr 02, 2021
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 13, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 18, 2023
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 15, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 15, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 26, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 12, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 01, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 05, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 10, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 18, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 19, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 26, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 03, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 22, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 11, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 02, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12577563
METHODS FOR MULTIPLEXING RECOMBINASE POLYMERASE AMPLIFICATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577606
Gene target region enrichment method and kit
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12553044
METHYLATION DETECTION AND ANALYSIS OF MAMMALIAN DNA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12534756
Method and system for the amplification of a nucleic acid
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12529101
METHODS AND REAGENTS FOR CHARACTERIZING GENOMIC EDITING, CLONAL EXPANSION, AND ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 20, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

7-8
Expected OA Rounds
53%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+13.6%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 709 resolved cases by this examiner